Commentators

Showers (AM and PM) 6° London Hi 10°C / Lo 5°C

Peter Wadhams: Every time I visit the Arctic, the ice gets thinner

Friday, 27 June 2008

In 1971, as a young graduate student, I was immensely excited to be sailing under the sea ice of the Arctic Ocean in a Navy submarine. In those days she was a diesel submarine, HMS Oracle, accompanying the Navy's nuclear sub, HMS Dreadnought, part-way towards the North Pole. The Navy saw that data collected from submarines could be of enormous scientific value, and so began an association which has lasted to the present day.

My fifth voyage in a polar submarine was last year, aboard HMS Tireless, in a survey that took her across the Arctic from Greenland towards the north coast of Alaska. Despite an accident under the ice, which killed two sailors, she accomplished a huge scientific programme including obtaining the first 3D maps of the ice underside with a multibeam sonar.

As I revisited the underside of the ice every few years, I could see big changes going on. The ice has been getting much thinner – a change of more than 40 per cent in the past 20 years. Sea ice has a rugged underside, with deep pressure ridges pushing blocks of ice down to 50 metres or more. These are disappearing – there are only a quarter as many now as there were 20 years ago.

This makes it much easier for ships to traverse the Arctic; tourists can travel to the Pole in summer aboard icebreakers which in the past were confined to the Arctic's fringes. But most important is the retreat of the Arctic ice.

At first the area dropped by only 3 per cent per decade. But recently it has begun to speed up, as the reduced ice growth in winter allows the ice to break up completely under increased summer warming.

Last summer was a record; only 4 million sq km of ice was left in September compared to the normal 8 million, and a huge area of the central Arctic, which has never been ice-free before, became blue ocean. This year, all the signs are that a greater retreat is in progress, which may for the first time make the North Pole part of an ice-free ocean. This is the biggest signal of climate change that has yet happened, and is visible from space – our blue planet is now blue right up to the North Pole, instead of having a white cap.

Peter Wadhams is professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University

Click here to have your say

Interesting? Click here to explore further

Comments

19 Comments

"This year, all the signs are that a greater retreat is in progress, which may for the first time make the North Pole part of an ice-free ocean."

"First time"?
How are you defining that?
First time since man? First time since man has been keeping records? First time in the history of the world since it was formed (including when the North Pole was subtropical, 55 million years ago)?

We have only been observing the North Pole for around 100 years. The earth has been warmer than today at several points of geological time, including - to take just relatively recent examples - the Bronze Age, the Roman warm phase and the Mediaeval Warm Period. The pole could very well have been ice-free at these times. 1971-present seems a rather short sample on which to base this thesis.

Methinks someone is arguing from a geologically restricted subject basis and a very short historical timeframe.

Note the word "may" in the original quote.

Posted by Barbara | 30.06.08, 12:39 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

If the Artic ice keeps reducing every time you visit then please stop going there, Mr Wadhams. You're wrecking our environment.

Posted by Iain Davis | 29.06.08, 11:46 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

HAARP technology will surely melt ice.

Then again we should have a pole reversal any time soon. That's bound to melt some ice and evaporate some life on Earth.

Posted by Far | 29.06.08, 10:04 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

www.americanthinker.com is a right wing site which arguments specialize in excoriating and dehumanizing anyone who is not of it's branch of the USA the right wing.

Posted by Objective | 29.06.08, 02:51 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Gee, Peter, you must be hot stuff. *tsssssssss*

Who'd be an arctic cartographer, eh? What a poo job that must be. Like treading water. Figuratively and soon-to-be literally.

Posted by Amanda Hill | 29.06.08, 00:54 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

I understand we are in a partial thaw within an ice-age, a transient phenomenon in a world that is generally warmer with a climate richer in CO2. Were these not the conditions in which our deposits of fossil fuels were laid down? If so, we should expect the climate to be temporally unstable, irrespective of human activity. Climate change is inevitable, and we should plan for it, rather than rally against it in Canute like fashion. Waving an accusatory finger at the world and saying "I told you so" is self-serving and a lesson in futility. It all seems rather limp from coming from an Oxbridge Prof.

Posted by Drew | 28.06.08, 23:42 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Quit scaring the ice away, Peter!

Posted by Mark J. | 28.06.08, 23:30 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Also on this site (arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere) you can see that there's actually 1.4Mkmsq more ice in the Antacrtic than the 1979-2000 mean

- and the total ice for the Globe is actually the same as the 1979-2000 mean....

- so, the earth has as much sea ice in total as it did, say, 20 years ago....

- so where is the balance in the reporting in the media?


Posted by Phil | 28.06.08, 15:13 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

According to this site (arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere) there's more Ice in the Arctic than this time last year...


ok, not much more, but I can't see it all disappearing this year....

Posted by Phil | 28.06.08, 14:00 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

Undersea Volcanic activity, ha ha ha ha - what a laff that is. People just do nto want to believe in AGW do they. It is so laughable as to make you cry. The denial is desperate and just plain wrong.

Easier to get to the oil, lol, another myth. its 2.5 to 4 miles down and hence unreachable for decades to come. Forget it, its all just political posturing as per usual.

The volcanic activity is meaningless in terms of heat relative to solar heat abd albedo retreat,

Posted by pete best | 28.06.08, 10:59 GMT

Post a complaint

Please note all fields are required.

Contact details

19 Comments